ArticleMedical education2026
Endless justification: A scoping review of team-based learning research in medical education.
Article in Medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementation strategies of team-based learning in undergraduate medical curricula: a scoping review.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Endless justification: A scoping review of team-based learning research in medical education.Medical education · 2026Article
- Transforming research in team-based learning.Medical education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAs team-based learning (TBL's) popularity and implementation have expanded in medical education, so too have TBL studies and accompanying research syntheses. However, earlier reviews hint that the scope of TBL research is narrow and our own observation is that it seems to lack progression. To examine this, our research question was: What is the state of TBL scholarship in medical education, and how has empirical research on TBL in medical education changed over time?
methodsWe conducted a scoping review of published research. On 4 April 2024, we performed a search across multiple databases (Medline, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, ERIC, and Scopus). We included empirical studies published in English that reported on TBL in medical education. The studies were analysed for study characteristics, research foci and research type (description, justification and clarification).
resultsWe identified and analysed 288 empirical studies. These primarily used quantitative descriptive methods, most commonly surveys. Research often focussed on comparing TBL to other learning approaches. Most studies examined individual characteristics, learning outcomes and/or student engagement. Descriptive studies were commonplace (33%), but the field was largely dominated by justification studies (52%). In contrast, clarification studies, those examining 'how' and 'why' TBL works, were relatively rare (15%) overall, and remained proportionally fewer over time than descriptive and justification studies. DISCUSSION: While we can safely say that TBL is just as effective as other educational approaches in terms of learning outcomes, key claims about TBL remain largely unexplored. Instead, TBL research seems to be stuck in justification rather than following a scientific line of pedagogical inquiry where one study is the foundation for the next. Critical examination of TBL is long overdue to bring greater understanding of the nature and effects of this pedagogical intervention on teaching and learning processes in different contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.